PITTSBURGH – The Pittsburgh Steelers have denied claims of defamation from one of its season ticket holders, who alleged she was treated rudely by stadium personnel and then defamed by being wrongly accused of using a racial slur towards another stadium employee working during the game.
Jane Doe first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 27, 2023 versus PSSI Stadium, LLC, Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., A National Football League Franchise (doing business as “The Steelers Pittsburgh Football Club”), Acrisure Stadium, its Director of Guest Experience Travis Baker, Jean Doe and John Doe.
“On or before Jan. 8, 2023, plaintiff Jane Doe, had been a Pittsburgh Steelers season ticket holder for 29 years, with her seats located in the stadium, owning and holding a seat license that she had purchased from the defendants. On or about Jan. 8, 2023, plaintiff Jane Doe and an acquaintance, attended a Pittsburgh Steelers game wherein they sat in plaintiff’s seats, with the intention of moving to her acquaintance’s seats, located in another section once plaintiff’s daughters arrived. After the conclusion of the first quarter, plaintiff Jane Doe and her acquaintance received notification that plaintiff’s daughters had arrived at the game. At that time, plaintiff and plaintiff’s friend began to make their way to her acquaintance’s seats in another section,” the suit said.
“As plaintiff and her acquaintance were making their way to the other section via the inner circle, defendant John Doe came upon the plaintiff and plaintiff’s friend, and, for no clear reason, began following them, yelling at them to get to their seats, as they were in the process of doing. Upon making it her acquaintance’s seats, plaintiff Jane Doe noticed several employees of defendant PSSI wearing blue jackets and standing along the sides of the walkway. As plaintiff and plaintiff’s friend were about to walk the steps up to their seats, they noticed that a play was about to begin, so they stopped and bent down so as not to block the view of said play from other attendees.”
The suit continued while the plaintiff and her friend were waiting for the play to finish, defendant John Doe, who, for no clear reason, who had been following them since they began their journey to Section 505, suddenly and aggressively yelled, “Get to your f—ing seats,” into the face of plaintiff Jane Doe, which caused spit from defendant John Doe to fly onto plaintiff’s face. After defendant John Doe suddenly and aggressively yelled in the face of plaintiff, she replied, “I am going to my f—ing seats, and you spit on me!”
“Plaintiff and her acquaintance then made their way to the acquaintance’s seats. Shortly after arriving to their seats, several ushers appeared and motioned for plaintiff and her acquaintance to come down out of their seats to the landing. Upon following the ushers, plaintiff questioned what this was about, to which defendant John Doe stated that plaintiff Jane Doe and plaintiff’s friend had made a racial slur to an employee of defendant PSSI. Plaintiff Jane Doe refuted this defamatory statement, replying that ‘f—’ is not a racial slur, and inquired as to who she allegedly had made this racial slur at. Defendant John Doe, informed plaintiff that she had said ‘F— you, n—r’ to defendant Jean Doe, who is a young African-American female in a blue jacket, with blonde braids. Plaintiff Jane Doe again denied this defamatory statement as she had never seen nor noticed defendant Jean Doe until after plaintiff and her acquaintance had been motioned to leave their seats, and said to defendant Jean Doe that ‘you are a liar,’ to which defendant Jean Doe went and hid around the corner of the area, with her head down,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff Jane Doe repeatedly denied this defamatory statement, one that could not be confirmed by any of the other employees of defendant PSSI, in blue jackets and ushers. Plaintiff continued to advise the employees of defendant PSSI, which included defendant John Doe and defendant Jean Doe, as well the Director of Guest Experience of the falsity of the accusation but to no avail, as the Director of Guest Experience, defendant Travis Baker, informed plaintiff Jane Doe, that ‘she needed to leave’ and called police to escort the pair out as she and her friend were being ejected from their seats and the stadium. Plaintiff Jane Doe, because of the false and defamatory statement made by defendant John Doe and defendant Jean Doe, was escorted out of the property known as Acrisure Stadium, by two police officers, without ever being told the names of defendants John and Jean Doe. Defendants’ accusation that the plaintiff used a racial slur is defamatory on its face.”
On or about Jan. 14, 2023, the plaintiff said she received a letter from defendant PSSI and signed by defendant Travis Baker, which informed her that, in response to the false and defamatory statements made by defendants John and Jean Doe, her season tickets were being revoked, she would need to complete a four-hour class and pay a fine of $250 in order to reinstate her season tickets and to regain access to the property leased by defendant PSSI from defendant SEA, known as Acrisure Stadium.
The suit added that as a result of these defamatory communications from the defendants, the plaintiff Jane Doe has sustained the following damages: a) Loss of her good name; b) Loss of her social reputation; c) Shame; d) Past and future embarrassment and humiliation; e) Loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life and; f) Dollars and cents of the imposed fine, in order to keep her access to her season tickets and set licenses and attendance at a series of classes for those who have suffered false and libelous claims.
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on April 1, counsel for the Pittsburgh Steelers defendants and Baker filed preliminary objections to that updated iteration of the case on April 3.
“For plaintiff in this case to prevail on her claims of defamation, she must plead and meet her burden of proof with respect to the following elements: (1) The defamatory character of the communication; (2) its publication by the defendant; (3) its application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; and (7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion. Plaintiff comes up short in pleading the above elements such that she fails to state a claim upon which recovery is possible,” the objections stated.
“Where PSSI, SEA and the Steelers are concerned, plaintiff does not set forth sufficient factual allegations to support a direct cause of action for defamation against these parties, which are obviously not persons, but commercial entities – and, in the case of the SEA, an entity created by statute. For example, plaintiff does not meet recognized notice-pleading standards when it comes to the element of publication, because she does not allege how, in what manner, or by what means these entities themselves in fact ‘published’ to third parties that she made a racist remark to Ms. Russell. To the extent plaintiff may be asserting an indirect cause of action for defamation based on a theory of vicarious liability or respondeat superior against these entities, she fails in this regard because neither Mr. Pereira nor Ms. Russell were their employees or agents. Rather, they were employees of BCM.”
The objections continued that while Mr. Baker was an employee of PSSI (not of SEA or the Steelers), the plaintiff alleges only that he instructed her to leave the Stadium on the day of the incident and later sent her – and only her – a letter informing her that her season tickets were being revoked and advising her of reinstatement procedures.
“Plaintiff does not allege that Mr. Baker impugned her character by accusing her of being a racist at the Stadium, and a private letter he later sent only to her via the mail does not meet the standard for publication to make out a claim for defamation. These shortcomings in her amended complaint serve to expose plaintiff’s inability to make out both direct and indirect/vicarious claims for defamation against the defendants,” the objections said.
Furthermore, the objections asserted that because the alleged defamatory letter was not attached to the complaint, there was “no way for the Court to evaluate the alleged defamatory character of the letter.”
The objections also sought the removal of the conspiracy claim for lack of support and the striking of all matter related to due process violations.
For multiple counts of defamation, libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by William F. Goodrich of Goodrich & Geist, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Robert J. Grimm and Ryan M. Joyce of Walsh Barnes, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-014655
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com